38980 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

1See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Nails 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope 

Ruling on Midwest Fastener Strike Pin Anchors,’’ 

dated August 2, 2017 (Final Scope Ruling); see also 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel 

Nails from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

44961 (August 1, 2008) (Order). 

2See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

348 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT October 19, 2018). 

3See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand (First Remand Redetermination), 

Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States Court, No. 

17–00231, Slip Op. 18–142 (CIT October 19, 2018) 

(First Remand Redetermination). 

4See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

435 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (CIT March 4, 2020) (Second 

Remand Order). 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United 

States, Court No. 17–00231, Slip Op. 20–28 (CIT 

March 4, 2020) (Second Remand Redetermination). 

6See OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358 

(Fed. Cir. 2020) (OMG). 

7See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

494 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (CIT January 21, 2021). 

8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, Court 

No. 17–00231, Slip Op. 21–07 (CIT January 21, 

2021), dated March 23, 2021. 

9See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

Slip Op. 21–86, Court No. 17–00231 (CIT July 12, 

2021). 

10See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

11See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

1See Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 83 FR 

11679 (March 16, 2018) (Final Results), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Background 

On August 2, 2017, Commerce found 

Midwest’s strike pin anchors, which 

consist of four components—a steel pin, 

a threaded body, a nut, and a flat 

washer—to be within the scope of the 

AD order on certain steel nails from the 

People’s Republic of China.1

Midwest appealed Commerce’s Final 

Scope Ruling. On October 19, 2018, the 

CIT remanded Commerce’s scope ruling 

to Commerce for further consideration.2

On April 25, 2019, Commerce issued its 

First Remand Redetermination, 

determining that the ‘‘pin’’ portion ‘‘of 

the product is subject to the {Order}, 

while the additional pieces, i.e., the 

outer-body anchor, hex nut, and washer 

anchor, would not be subject.’’ 3

On March 4, 2020, the CIT again 

remanded Commerce’s scope 

determination.4 Pursuant to the Second 

Remand Order, on June 17, 2020, 

Commerce issued its Second Remand 

Redetermination, finding that Midwest’s 

strike pin anchors, in their entirety, are 

covered by the scope of the Order.5

On August 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 

issued its final decision in OMG.6 In 

light of the CAFC’s decision, on January 

21, 2021, the CIT remanded the Final 

Scope Ruling to Commerce.7

In its final remand redetermination, 

issued in March 2021, Commerce found 

Midwest’s strike pin anchors to be 

outside the scope of the Order.8 The CIT 

sustained Commerce’s final 

redetermination.9

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,10 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,11 the 

CAFC held that, pursuant to sections 

516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), Commerce must 

publish a notice of court decision that 

is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce 

determination and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

July 12, 2021, judgment constitutes a 

final decision of the CIT that is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s Final Scope 

Ruling. Thus, this notice is published in 

fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Scope Ruling 

In accordance with the CIT’s July 12, 

2021, final judgment, Commerce is 

amending its Final Scope Ruling and 

finds that the scope of the order does 

not cover the products addressed in the 

Final Scope Ruling. 

Liquidation of Suspended Entries 

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) that, 

pending any appeals, Midwest’s strike 

pin anchors will not be subject to a cash 

deposit requirement. 

In the event that the CIT’s final 

judgment is not appealed or is upheld 

on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP 

to liquidate entries of Midwest’s strike 

pin anchors without regard to 

antidumping duties and to lift 

suspension of liquidation of such 

entries. 

At this time, Commerce remains 

enjoined by CIT from liquidating entries 

included in the scope of the Order by 

the Final Scope Ruling. These entries 

will remain enjoined pursuant to the 

terms of the injunction during the 

pendency of any appeals process. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(c) and 

(e) of the Act. 

Dated: July 19, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15741 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–867] 

Large Power Transformers From the 

Republic of Korea: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With Final 

Results, Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Review; 2015–16 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, the Court of 

International Trade (CIT) sustained the 

final results of redetermination pursuant 

to remand pertaining to the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on large power 

transformers (LPTs) from the Republic 

of Korea (Korea) covering the period 

August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. 

The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is notifying the public that 

the final judgment is not in harmony 

with the final results of the 

administrative review, and that 

Commerce is amending the final results 

of review with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margin assigned to 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 

Hyosung Corporation, and the nonexamined company ILJIN Electric Co., 

Ltd. 

DATES: Applicable July 19, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0195. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 16, 2018, Commerce issued 

the final results of the administrative 

review for the period August 1, 2015, 

through July 31, 2016.1 In the Final 

Results, Commerce determined a 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

the two mandatory respondents, 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 

(Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation 

(Hyosung), based on total facts available 

with an adverse inference, of 60.81 

percent. Further, Commerce determined 

the weighted-average dumping margin 

for the three companies that were under 

review but not selected for individual 

examination, ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co., 

Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38981 

2See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and 

Hyosung Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. 

United States and ABB Inc., Consol. Court No. 18– 

00066, Slip Op. 19–105 (CIT August 5, 2019) (First 

Remand Order). 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand 

Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung 

Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States 

and ABB Inc., Consol. Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 

19–105 (CIT August 5, 2019),’’ dated December 19, 

2019, and available at https://

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/19-105.pdf . 

4 Id. 

5See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and 

Hyosung Corporation and Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. 

United States and ABB Enterprise Software Inc., 

Consol. Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 20–165 (CIT 

November 18, 2020) (Second Remand Order). 

6See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand: 

Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung 

Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States 

and ABB Inc., Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 20–165 

(CIT November 18, 2020),’’ dated April 5, 2021, and 

available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/ 

20-165.pdf (Final Results of Second 

Redetermination). 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and 

Hyosung Corporation and Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. 

United States and ABB Enterprise Software Inc., 

Consol. Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 21–84 (CIT 

July 9, 2021). 

10See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), at 341. 

11See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(Diamond Sawblades). 

12See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Duty Administrative Review; 

2016–2017, 84 FR 16461 (April 19, 2019). 

(LSIS), based on the rates determined 

for the mandatory respondents. 

On August 5, 2019, the CIT remanded 

various aspects of the Final Results to 

Commerce.2 Specifically, the CIT 

directed Commerce to further explain or 

reconsider its reliance on total facts 

available with adverse inferences for 

both Hyundai and Hyosung. For 

Hyundai, the Court directed Commerce 

to further explain or reconsider its 

reliance on total facts available with 

adverse inferences with respect to 

Hyundai’s failure to: (1) Provide 

information on accessories; (2) report 

home market gross unit prices properly; 

and (3) disclose an affiliated sales agent. 

For Hyosung, the Court directed 

Commerce to further explain or 

reconsider its reliance on total facts 

available with adverse inferences with 

respect to Hyosung’s failure to: (1) 

Report service-related revenues 

contained on order acknowledgement 

forms (OAFs); (2) report certain 

discounts and rebates; and (3) explain 

the use of one invoice for multiple sales 

across multiple administrative reviews. 

Pursuant to the First Remand Order, 

Commerce reconsidered and further 

explained its finding regarding 

Hyundai’s failure to: (1) Provide 

information regarding accessories; (2) 

report home market gross unit prices 

properly; and (3) disclose an affiliated 

sales agent. Commerce also 

reconsidered and further explained its 

findings regarding Hyosung’s failure to: 

(1) Report service-related revenues 

recorded on OAFs; (2) report certain 

discounts and rebates; and (3) explain 

the use of one invoice for multiple sales 

across multiple administrative reviews.3

With respect to Hyosung, Commerce 

determined that the issues related to 

service-related revenues recorded on 

OAFs and the use of one invoice for 

multiple sales across multiple reviews 

were no longer a basis for Commerce’s 

application of total facts available with 

adverse inferences but that the failure to 

report certain discounts and rebates 

continued to constitute a basis for 

Commerce’s application of total facts 

available with adverse inferences. For 

Hyundai, Commerce found that 

Hyundai’s reporting with respect to 

accessories was not a basis for 

Commerce’s application of total facts 

available with adverse inferences, but 

continued to find that the application of 

total facts available with adverse 

inferences was warranted due to the 

understatement of home market prices 

and inconsistent treatment of 

merchandise under consideration.4

On November 18, 2020, the CIT 

remanded Commerce’s Final First 

Results of Redetermination with respect 

to the application of total adverse facts 

available for both Hyundai and 

Hyosung, finding that Commerce’s 

redeterminations were not supported by 

substantial evidence.5 Pursuant to the 

Second Remand Order, Commerce 

reconsidered its reliance on total facts 

available with adverse inferences for 

both Hyundai and Hyosung. Commerce 

determined that the application of 

partial facts available with no adverse 

inferences was warranted with respect 

to both Hyundai and Hyosung.6

Commerce calculated a weightedaverage dumping margin of zero percent 

for both Hyundai and Hyosung.7

Commerce also applied an average of 

these two rates, i.e., zero percent, to 

ILJIN Electric, which was not selected 

for individual examination during the 

period of review and which was party 

to this litigation.8

On July 9, 2021, the CIT sustained 

Commerce’s Final Second Results of 

Redetermination.9

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,10 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,11 the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 

sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

Commerce must publish a notice of a 

court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Commerce determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s July 9, 2021, judgment 

sustaining Commerce’s Final Second 

Results of Redetermination constitutes a 

final decision of the CIT that is not in 

harmony with the Final Results. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Accordingly, Commerce will continue 

the suspension of liquidation of the 

subject merchandise at issue pending 

expiration of the period to appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, Commerce is amending the 

Final Results with respect to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

calculated for Hyundai, Hyosung and 

ILJIN Electric. Based on the Final 

Results of Second Redetermination, as 

affirmed by the CIT, the revised 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric, 

from August 1, 2015, through July 31, 

2016, are as follows: 

Producer or exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., 

Ltd ........................................... 0.00 

Hyosung Corporation .................. 0.00 

ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd ................ 0.00 

In the event that the CIT’s final 

judgement is not appealed or, if 

appealed, is upheld by a final and 

conclusive court decision, Commerce 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to assess antidumping duties 

on unliquidated entries of subject 

merchandise based on the weightedaverage dumping margins listed above 

for the Amended Final Results. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Since the Final Results, Commerce 

has established new cash deposit rates 

for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN 

Electric.12 Therefore, this Final Results 

of Second Redetermination, as affirmed 

by the CIT, and as published in this 

notice, does not prospectively change 

the existing cash deposit rates for 

Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38982 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

1See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from India and the People’s Republic of China: 

Countervailing Duty Order (India) and Amended 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Countervailing Duty Order 

(People’s Republic of China), 81 FR 27977 (May 6, 

2016) (Orders). 

2See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 86 

FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 

3See Domestic Interested Parties’ Letters, ‘‘FiveYear (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from the People’s Republic of China—Domestic 

Interested Parties’ Notice of Intent to Participate,’’ 

dated April 15, 2021; and ‘‘Five-Year (Sunset) 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India— 

Domestic Interested Parties’ Notice of Intent to 

Participate,’’ dated April 15, 2021. 

4See Domestic Interested Parties’ Letters, ‘‘FiveYear (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from the People’s Republic of China—Domestic 

Interested Parties’ Substantive Response to Notice 

of Initiation,’ dated April 30, 2021 (China 

Substantive Response); and ‘‘Five-Year (Sunset) 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India— 

Domestic Interested Parties’ Substantive Response 

to Notice of Initiation,’’ dated April 30, 2021 (India 

Substantive Response). 

5See CG Roxane’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Review of 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from China and 

Oman: Response to Notice of Institution,’’ dated 

May 3, 2021; and Niagara’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Review 

of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from China: 

Response to Notice of Institution,’’ dated May 3, 

2021. 

6See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Review for 

April 2021,’’ dated May 21, 2021. 

7See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited First Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Orders of 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China and India,’’ dated concurrently 

with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 

Decision Memorandum). 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 19, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15743 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–025; C–533–862] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

From the People’s Republic of China 

and India: Final Results of the 

Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the 

Countervailing Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of these expedited 

sunset reviews, the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

(CVD) orders on polyethylene 

terephthalate (PET) resin from the 

People’s Republic of China (China) and 

India would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the levels as 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Sunset 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Applicable July 23, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua A. DeMoss, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3362. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 6, 2016, Commerce published 

the CVD orders on PET resin from China 

and India in the Federal Register.1 On 

March 31, 2021, Commerce published 

the notice of initiation of the first sunset 

reviews of the Orders, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act).2 Commerce 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from DAK Americas, LLC, Indorama 

Ventures USA Inc., and Nan Ya Plastics 

Corporation, America (collectively, 

domestic interested parties) within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i).3 Each claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic 

producers engaged in the production of 

PET resin in the United States. 

On April 30, 2021, Commerce 

received a substantive response from the 

domestic interested parties within the 

30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i).4 On May 3, 2021, two 

respondent interested parties, CG 

Roxane, LLC (CG Roxane) and Niagara 

Bottling, LLC (Niagara), filed 

substantive responses pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(3), to the record of the 

China sunset review.5 However, for the 

substantive responses of respondent 

interested parties to be considered 

adequate under this regulation, the 

respondents must account for, on 

average, more than 50 percent (volume 

or value) of total exports during the fiveyear period preceding the year of 

publication of the initiation notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

CG Roxane and Niagara failed to 

demonstrate this. We did not receive a 

substantive response from any other 

interested party in these proceedings. 

On May 21, 2021, Commerce notified 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) that it did not receive 

an adequate substantive response from 

respondent interested parties.6 As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews of these Orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise covered by these 

orders is polyethylene terephthalate 

(PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity 

of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, 

deciliters per gram. The scope includes 

blends of virgin PET resin and recycled 

PET resin containing 50 percent or more 

virgin PET resin content by weight, 

provided such blends meet the intrinsic 

viscosity requirements above. The scope 

includes all PET resin meeting the 

above specifications regardless of 

additives introduced in the 

manufacturing process. The 

merchandise subject to these orders is 

properly classified under subheading 

3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by these orders is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these sunset 

reviews are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, including the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of countervailable subsidies and the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail 

if the Orders were revoked.7 The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file electronically 

via Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Services System 

(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http://

access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/ 

index.html. A list of the issues 

discussed in the decision memorandum 

is attached at the appendix to this 

notice. 

Final Results of Sunset Reviews 

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 

752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines 

that revocation of the Orders would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of countervailable subsidies 

at the following rates: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES